263 replies to this topic

[Bagheera]

Shermburger, on 18 March 2014 - 11:07 AM, said:

And as I've said ad nauseam, no successful gaming company will put that much work into a game post-release. Role warfare is something that needs to be engineered during development, not after. Direct weight limits is the closest thing we will likely get.

If that's the case, then it doesn't matter what the class limits are. They won't fundamentally change the relationship between mechs, it will just constrain battlefield variety.

I have seen as many underweight teams dominate matches, including skirmish, as I have seen overweight ones. The idea that tonnage is the determining factor is fatuous, and trying to equalize mechs for the arena game we have is definitely not the way to go.

So whatever class limitation is imposed is just going to give us the same gameplay with fewer possibilities. Awesome.

[R Razor]

Joseph Mallan, on 18 March 2014 - 04:16 AM, said:

And Competitive isn't Competitive if you are not fighting every and anything that can come your way.

Then perhaps the solution is to move competitive players to their own server and let them min-max themselves to their hearts content instead of subjecting those of us that want a Battletech Simulation to the asinine garbage builds that the e-peen measuring competitive players can't live without. Just a thought.

[Shermburger]

Bagheera, on 18 March 2014 - 12:06 PM, said:

If that's the case, then it doesn't matter what the class limits are. They won't fundamentally change the relationship between mechs, it will just constrain battlefield variety.

I have seen as many underweight teams dominate matches, including skirmish, as I have seen overweight ones. The idea that tonnage is the determining factor is fatuous, and trying to equalize mechs for the arena game we have is definitely not the way to go.

So whatever class limitation is imposed is just going to give us the same gameplay with fewer possibilities. Awesome.

See, you guys are dead set on this idea that making the games less heavy/assault centric is going to kill variety. There are two other weight classes in this game, and one of those is extinct. I don't see how adding that variable will serve to kill variation.

As far as this not fixing the core issue: No, it won't. And I doubt it can be fixed. In over two decades of Mechwarrior, it has never managed to make mediums useful for much outside of the occasional standout mech. In a Rock 'em Sock 'em robots arena deathmatch game like MW games have almost always been, mediums cannot be useful since every other class is objectively superior. Making mediums what they were meant to be would call for this game to be more like Planetside, or some other MMO with a large world where surprise and meaningful objectives exist. That is out of the question this late after release.

[Mystere]

Shermburger, on 18 March 2014 - 01:58 PM, said:

See, you guys are dead set on this idea that making the games less heavy/assault centric is going to kill variety. There are two other weight classes in this game, and one of those is extinct. I don't see how adding that variable will serve to kill variation.

As far as this not fixing the core issue: No, it won't. And I doubt it can be fixed. In over two decades of Mechwarrior, it has never managed to make mediums useful for much outside of the occasional standout mech. In a Rock 'em Sock 'em robots arena deathmatch game like MW games have almost always been, mediums cannot be useful since every other class is objectively superior. Making mediums what they were meant to be would call for this game to be more like Planetside, or some other MMO with a large world where surprise and meaningful objectives exist. That is out of the question this late after release.

Can you say "Community Warfare"? For many people here, that will determine whether or not MWO lives a healthy and profitable life.

What we have now is nothing more than just an arena-style game -- something I and many players did not come here for. Otherwise, I can just as well host a LAN party -- with the facility, computers, network, food, and alcohol all supplied by me -- and just use MW4 ... or MWO free of charge (gasp!).

Again, I hope PGI is getting the hint.

Edited by Mystere, 18 March 2014 - 02:14 PM.

[Shermburger]

Mystere, on 18 March 2014 - 02:12 PM, said:

Can you say "Community Warfare"? For many people here, that will determine whether or not MWO lives a healthy and profitable life.

What we have now is nothing more than just an arena-style game -- something I and many players did not come here for. Otherwise, I can just as well host a LAN party and use MW4 ... or MWO free of charge.

Again, I hope PGI is getting the hint.

I highly doubt the community warfare is going to change the 12v12 thing we have going now. It's just going to give it a little context. I hope I'm proven wrong.

[Bagheera]

Shermburger, on 18 March 2014 - 01:58 PM, said:

See, you guys are dead set on this idea that making the games less heavy/assault centric is going to kill variety. There are two other weight classes in this game, and one of those is extinct. I don't see how adding that variable will serve to kill variation.

You need to stop lumping people together based on your assumptions. You''re talking to one of the biggest advocates for the medium around these parts. That said, I don't really care about the quantity of assaults in a match. Going to say this unequivocally: as one who primarily drives mediums, I still think 3333 is a pathetic cop out for a game that deserves better.

Any limitations on the quantity of a given class, or all classes, limits the number of possible permutations for team composition. Period. It's not open to debate. It's just the way permutations work.

I don't care if I am matched against all assaults or all lights, but I'd take that over an endless string of near as makes no difference identical 3/3/3/3 teams in a game that is already suffering from repetitiveness. 3333 doesn't help the medium class as a whole, it just means 3 people on a team have to be in one.

If I want to run a lance of Hunchbacks, I shouldn't have to resort to forming a 12 man team to do so. Hunchback Lance, too OP for PUGs, too lols for 12mans.

Edited by Bagheera, 18 March 2014 - 02:35 PM.

[Shermburger]

Bagheera, on 18 March 2014 - 02:31 PM, said:

You need to stop lumping people together based on your assumptions.

I didn't lump you into anything, but okay.

[Bagheera]

Shermburger, on 18 March 2014 - 01:58 PM, said:

See, you guys are dead set on this idea that making the games less heavy/assault centric is going to kill variety.

Shermburger, on 18 March 2014 - 02:34 PM, said:

I didn't lump you into anything, but okay.

Yes, you did in your opening sentence. You lumped me with people who think this is all about their assault mechs. I almost never assault mech.

Edited by Bagheera, 18 March 2014 - 02:38 PM.

[Shermburger]

Bagheera, on 18 March 2014 - 02:36 PM, said:

Still don't see where I lumped you into anything based on an assumption. You are claiming that 3-3-3-3 kills variety and introduces 'fewer opportunities.' I responded to that.

[Bagheera]

Nevemind then. I don't have time to teach you both semantics and permutations.

It's right there, "You guys ... Assault mechs"

More constraints = fewer permutations. Arguing doesn't change math.

Edited by Bagheera, 18 March 2014 - 02:41 PM.

[Shermburger]

Bagheera, on 18 March 2014 - 02:39 PM, said:

Nevemind then. I don't have time to teach you both semantics and permutations.

Editing your posts after the fact is a surefire way to add more confusion than is needed.

You misread the post in question. It's simple as that.

Edited by Shermburger, 18 March 2014 - 02:45 PM.

[Bagheera]

Maybe, but I suck at posting from my phone. Either way I don't really think I am any more interested in this than you are.

Enjoy your Solaris Arena game.

[Mystere]

Shermburger, on 18 March 2014 - 02:38 PM, said:

Still don't see where I lumped you into anything based on an assumption. You are claiming that 3-3-3-3 kills variety and introduces 'fewer opportunities.' I responded to that.

Which is bigger?

• A^3 + B^3 + C^3 + D^3
  
• (A+B+C+D)^12

where A,B,C, and D are the number of chassis used for each class of mech. Note that I am also counting unique player-mech combinations.

Edited by Mystere, 18 March 2014 - 03:50 PM.

[Shermburger]

Mystere, on 18 March 2014 - 03:47 PM, said:

Which is bigger?

• A^3 + B^3 + C^3 + D^3
  
• (A+B+C+D)^12

where A,B,C, and D are the number of chassis used for each class of mech. Note that I am also counting unique player-mech combinations.

You seem to be making the assumption that players take advantage of all the possible combinations and don't just flock to pile on the tonnage, since heavies/assaults are objectively superior to mediums.

[Mystere]

Shermburger, on 18 March 2014 - 03:52 PM, said:

You seem to be making the assumption that players take advantage of all the possible combinations and don't just flock to pile on the tonnage, since heavies/assaults are objectively superior to mediums.

Of course I am. But that's because I am not showing you the actual math. I am just merely illustrating the difference in magnitude between the two.

Edited by Mystere, 18 March 2014 - 07:41 PM.

[YueFei]

PhoenixFire55, on 18 March 2014 - 02:53 AM, said:

But the difference is that in NFL its always one same type of game, one same type of objective. While in BT/MW there are various objectives beyond 'kill them all'. It is 'kill them all' now in MWO but it shouldn't be.

And in the NFL, despite there being a single objective for the offense (advance the football upfield), look at all the myriad of ways in which they can achieve that. Short-yardage situation? Put in extra offensive linemen. 3rd and long? Put in extra wide receivers.

MWO, which has the potential for so many more types of missions and objectives, has no excuse for not designing the game around role warfare. It's supposed to be a friggin PILLAR of this game.

[PhoenixFire55]

YueFei, on 18 March 2014 - 07:06 PM, said:

And in the NFL, despite there being a single objective for the offense (advance the football upfield), look at all the myriad of ways in which they can achieve that. Short-yardage situation? Put in extra offensive linemen. 3rd and long? Put in extra wide receivers.

MWO also has different type of players/mechs. You always have 12 mechs on the team but just like NFL you can use them differently. But again, NFL has only one objective, that is to get the darn ball across the line. MWO, even at current lame state, have different objectives. All NFL strategies are designed for one purpose ... score and don't let the opponent do it. In MWO, you can make killing the oposing team your primary goal, or you can make base cap primary goal, or you can make capping primary.

YueFei, on 18 March 2014 - 07:06 PM, said:

MWO, which has the potential for so many more types of missions and objectives, has no excuse for not designing the game around role warfare. It's supposed to be a friggin PILLAR of this game.

Indeed.

[Navy Sixes]

Bagheera, on 18 March 2014 - 02:39 PM, said:

More constraints = fewer permutations. Arguing doesn't change math.

Yeah, I hate to cut in, but I just have to say that putting an "=" in doesn't make your statement a deductive causal. It's not as 'math' as you want it to be.

The fact is that right now, most players can run whatever they want, without constraint, which is why class-wise we find fewer permutations on the field. Tonnage/class limits have been a part of Battletech since TT. They should have been a part of this game from the beginning. You agree on a tonnage, you field your mechs. (Then you spend the rest of the night rolling dice and erasing/ marking-in little circles on pieces of paper... compared to that, maybe that's why I think MWO is all right. But I digress...)

"You bring whatever and I'll bring whatever," said no one ever at the beginning of a Battletech tournament. Everyone would just bring the biggest, best-equipped mechs possible, and for all the "freedom of choice," there would be a surprising lack of variety.

Gee, kind of sounds like what's going on now...

[Master Maniac]

3, 3, 3, 3 is a really, really stupid idea, but given the fact that the devs have been on something of a roll as far as horrible ideas are concerned, they might as well go ahead and roll that one out.

I seriously don't see a single legitimate reason for limiting what types of 'Mechs drop, at least not within the bounds of the current game mechanics. There really isn't one.

At the very least, it'll make battles feel even more artificial than they already did before, further "game-izing" the combat. I'm glad the Inner Sphere factions have adopted Clan like force composition rules. Take out their three scouts and you know they're out of lights. Arty two of their assaults to death, and you'll know they're out of heavy armor.

It's bad, boring, and needless.

[Nightfire]

Tycho von Gagern, on 19 March 2014 - 08:03 PM, said:

Yeah, I hate to cut in, but I just have to say that putting an "=" in doesn't make your statement a deductive causal. It's not as 'math' as you want it to be.

The fact is that right now, most players can run whatever they want, without constraint, which is why class-wise we find fewer permutations on the field. Tonnage/class limits have been a part of Battletech since TT. They should have been a part of this game from the beginning. You agree on a tonnage, you field your mechs. (Then you spend the rest of the night rolling dice and erasing/ marking-in little circles on pieces of paper... compared to that, maybe that's why I think MWO is all right. But I digress...)

"You bring whatever and I'll bring whatever," said no one ever at the beginning of a Battletech tournament. Everyone would just bring the biggest, best-equipped mechs possible, and for all the "freedom of choice," there would be a surprising lack of variety.

Gee, kind of sounds like what's going on now...

You neglect to mention some important caveats to your example.
In TT, the tonnage or prerequisite, is known and completely in your control before you ever set one mech's foot on the field. You can talk to your opponents and the rest is up to you.

In MWO's 3/3/3/3, you can pick anything you like. We have not been told that we will get any information on what the queue's will currently be like. Even the random dungeon finder in WoW gives you an indication of what classes are in need.
Running with the presumption that we will have no idea what matchmaker criteria will be lacking, choosing a mech is a random guess as to whether you will be entering a queue in demand (fast match formation) or a queue in over supply (slow match formation).

As such, the more requirements you mandate be filled before a match can be formed (Elo, Weight Class, Tonnage) then the longer it will take to form that match. This is important, just keep going a bit more!

You may force some people into playing mechs they don't want to play just to find matches quicker and that will force a variety into what mechs are seen in matches. However if you force people to play mechs they don't enjoy for too long, they will soon learn to not enjoy the game.

If your choice is between playing a mech you want to play and waiting 5 minutes to find a match or playing a mech you hate and finding a match nearly instantly, you might decide instead to take the third option. Not play at all! With player numbers dropping already, we don't need another way to chase off the players we do have! Retention in MWO is abysmal!

There are other ways to make matches more balanced that are more flexible (easier to satisfy) and also capable of more complexity and is more accommodating in terms of variety. 3/3/3/3 is just lazy thinking and seems as adversarial as ever.